Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion for Hydrogen-Metal System

ABSTRACTGeneralized theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) is used to carry out theoretical analyses of recent experimental results of Rossi et al. for hydrogen-nickel system. Based on incomplete experimental information currently available, preliminary theoretical explanations of the experimental results are presented in terms of the generalized BECNF theory. Additional accurate experimental data are needed for obtaining more complete theoretical descriptions and predictions, which can be tested by further experiments.

I. Introduction Over the last two decades, there have been many publications reporting experimental observations of excess heat generation and anomalous nuclear reactions occurring in metals at ultra-low energies, now known as „low-energy nuclear reactions‟ (LENR). Theoretical explanations of the LENR phenomena have been described based on the theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) in micro/nano-scale metal particles [1-3]. The BECNF theory is based on a single basic assumption capable of explaining the observed LENR phenomena; deuterons in metals undergo Bose-Einstein condensation. While the BECNF theory is able to make general qualitative predictions concerning LENR phenomena it is also a quantitative predictive physical theory. Some of the theoretical predictions have been confirmed by experiments reported recently. The BECNF theory was generalized for the case of two species of Bosons [4].

Recently, there were two positive demonstrations (January and March, 2011) of a heat generating device called “Energy Catalyzer” [5]. The Energy Catalyzer is an apparatus built by inventor Andrea Rossi, Italy. The patent application [5] states that the device transforms energy stored in its fuel (hydrogen and nickel) into heat by means of nuclear reaction of the two fuel components, with a consequent observed production of copper [5,6]. According to Rossi‟s patent application [5], heating of the sample is accomplished by an electric resistance heater. Details of March 2011 demonstration were reported by Essen and Kullander [7]. The report [7] also contains references to January 2011 demonstration. In the following, we describe hydrogen-nickel reactions in section II. Other possible reactions are discussed in section III. Conclusions are given in section IV.

II. Hydrogen-Nickel Reactions The generalized BECNF theory [4] can be applied to the case of hydrogen-nickel fusion reactions observed in Rossi‟s device (the energy catalyzer) [5] under the following two conditions: (1) additives used (not disclosed in the patent application) form Ni alloy and/or Ni metal/alloy oxide in the surface regions of nickel nano-scale particles, so that Ni atoms/nuclei become mobile with a sufficiently large diffusion coefficient and (2) local magnetic field is very weak in the surface regions, providing a suitable environment in which two neighboring protons can couple their spins anti-parallel to form spin-zero singlet state (S=0). Relatively low Curie temperature (nickel has the Curie temperature of 631 oK (~358 oC)) is expected to help to maintain the weak magnetic field in the surface regions. If Rossi‟s device is operated at temperatures greater than the Curie temperature ~358 oC and with hydrogen pressures of up to ~22 bars, the conditions (1) and (2) may have been achieved in Rossi‟s device. The mobility of Ni atoms/nuclei (condition (1)) is enhanced by the use of an electric resistance heater to maintain higher temperatures. This may provide a suitable environment in which more of both Ni atoms/nuclei and protons become mobile, thus creating a favorable environment for the case of two species of Bosons (Ni nuclei and composite Bosons of paired two protons). If the velocities of mobile Ni atoms/nuclei under the condition (1) are sufficiently slow, their de-Broglie wavelengths become sufficiently large and may overlap with neighboring two-proton composite Bosons which are also mobile, thus creating Bose-Einstein condensation of two species of Bosons. The generalized BECNF theory can now be applied to these two-species of Bosons and provides a mechanism for the suppression/cancellation of the Coulomb barrier, as shown in [4]. Once the Coulomb barrier is overcome in the entrance reaction channel, many possible allowed exit reaction channels may become open such as reactions (i) ANi(2p(S=0), p)ˆA+1 Cu, with even A=58, 60, 62 and 64. These reactions will produce radioactive isotopes 59Cu and 61Cu with A = 58 and 60, respectively. 59Cu has a half-life of 81.5 seconds and decays by the electron capture to the 59Ni ground state (58.1%) which has a half-life of 7.6 x 10ˆ4 years and to the 59Ni excited states (41.9%) which in turn decay to the 59Ni ground state by emitting gamma-rays with energies ranging from 310.9 keV to 2682.0 keV [8]. 61Cu has a half-life of 3.333 hours and decays by the electron capture to the stable 61Ni ground state (67%) and to the 61Ni excited states (33%) which in turn decay to the 61Ni ground state by emitting gamma-rays with energies ranging from 67.412 keV to 2123.93 keV [8]. Gamma-rays (and neutrons) have not been observed outside the reactor chamber during the experiment [6]. These gamma-rays may have been present inside the reaction chamber. If no radiations are observed, reactions (i) are ruled out. Focardi and Rossi [6] reported that the experimental results of Rossi et al. indicate the production of stable isotopes 63Cu and 65Cu with an isotopic ratio of 63Cu /65Cu ~ 1.6 (natural abundance is 63Cu/ 65Cu = 2.24). This production of Cu may be due to reactions (i). The production of 63Cu and 65Cu with isotopic ratio of 63Cu /65Cu different from the natural isotopic ratio is expected and can be explained by estimating the reaction rates for 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu. Reaction rates estimates based on transmission probability calculated from a barrier tunneling model similar to the alpha-decay theory indicate that the reaction rates for stable Cu productions, 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu, are expected to be much larger than the reaction rates for production of radioactive Cu, 58Ni(2p(S=0), p)59Cu and 60Ni(2p(S=0), p)61Cu. This leads to the prediction that intensities of the gamma-rays from the decays of 59Cu and 61Cu are expected to be weak and do not commensurate with the observed heat production, which is mostly from stable Cu production reactions 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu. There are other exit reaction channels which are (nearly) radiation-less, such as reactions (ii) ANi(2p(S=0), α)ˆA-2Ni, (even A=58, 60, 62, and 64) [9]. For this case, we expect that the natural isotopic ratio of Ni isotopes will be changed in a particular way, which can be checked from the sample after each experiment. Even though reactions (ii) produce radioactive isotope 56Ni, it can be shown using the alpha-decay theory that its reaction rate is much slower (by many order of magnitudes) than those of other reactions. Other exit reaction channels, ANi(2p(S=0), d)ACu, ANi(2p(S=0), 3He)ˆA-1Ni, and ANi(2p(S=0), t)ˆA-1Cu (all with even A=58, 60, 62, and 64) are ruled out since these reactions all have negative Q-values. There are possibilities of neutron-emission exit reaction channels, such as reactions (iii) ANi(2p(S=0), n)ˆA+1Zn, (even A= 62, and 64; Q is negative for A = 58 and 60). However, reaction rates for reactions (iii) are expected be substantially smaller than those for reaction (i). Reactions (iii) involve emission of a tightly bound neutron (62Ni -> 61Ni + n, Q = -10.597MeV or 64Ni -> 63Ni + n, Q = -9.657MeV) while reactions (i) involve emission of a loosely bound proton from an excited compound nuclear state consisting of ANi (even A) and 2p(S=0). Therefore, the transmission probability of a neutron tunneling through the centrifugal barrier in reactions (iii) is expected to be substantially smaller than that of a proton tunneling through the centrifugal barrier in reactions (i). The branching ratios of reactions (i) and (ii) need to be determined by measurements of gamma-ray energies and changes in isotopic ratios from future Ross-type experiments. Theoretically, the branching ratios can be estimated by calculating transmission probability of an emitted charged particle tunneling through both Coulomb and centrifugal barriers in the exit reaction channel, as done in the alpha-decay theory.

III. Other Possible Reactions In addition to the above reactions described in II, there are possibilities of reactions involving additives used (not disclosed so far). For an example, if lithium is added as an additive, reaction (iv) 6Li(2p(S=0), p 3He)4He may be possible. As in cases of reactions (i) and (ii), Ni nano-particles would be still playing an important role of providing two-proton singlet composite Bosons for reaction (iv). Reaction (iv) would not change the isotopic ratios of Ni.

VI. Conclusions In order to explore validity and to test predictions of the generalized BECNF theory for the hydrogen-metal system, it is very important to carry out Rossi-type experiments independently in order to establish what are exact inputs and outputs of each experiment. If the entrance and exit reaction channels are established experimentally, we can investigate selection rules as well as estimates of the reaction rates for different exit reaction channels, based on the generalized BECNF theory [1-4]. Once these experimental results are established, further application of the generalized BECNF theory can be made for the purpose of confirming the theoretical mechanism and making theoretical predictions, which can then be tested experimentally. Basic description of the above theoretical concepts for BECNF in the hydrogen-metal system will be included in an invited talk at a forthcoming nuclear physics conference [10], and will be published in the conference proceedings [10].

Dear Anrea Rossi,
Your e-cat running without constant external energy input is very important. For many reasons.
I’m speechless because of the speed of your ingenuity !
Don’t you feel a little pity that you did not perform the first public demos with this version ?
A better secret, one would think, with more available ways of misunderstanding.
Is it because of this more developed idea that you wrote recently that savings of about 60% in product costs will be possible ?
Is it because of this that you say we’ll have to wait for the consumer level units ? There is very fast evolution and even before mass production could be scaled up the product would be obsolete.
Does it physically auto-regulate ?
Really do not know what to say. The e-cat was already the best work, but this is even better.
Congratulations.
Koen

Dear Carlo:
Probably there has been a misunderstanding, no 35 kW reactors will be demonstrated anywhere in public. In October will be put in operation our 1 MW plant. I continue to work on it 16 hours per day, and so far we are prefectly in time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Dear Andrea Rossi
in a recent interview Defkalion GT President Alexandros Xanthoulis stated that a 35KW Hyperion will be demonstrated at the end of September.
Should we consider this an error meaning he was talking about the 1MW module at the end of October or can we really expect to see a 35KW module at the end of September?

What is the average positive energy of the e-cat when it is operated without an external output? What is the total power of the e-cat? How long can you make it operate without an external energy input.

Dear Alessandro Casali:
This photo has been taken during the stress test of a sery of E-Cats a couple of weeks ago, together with the Greek Scientist Christos Stremmenos. They are some of the E-Cats that will compound the 1 MW plant. In that phase the E-Cats were working making steam WITHOUT energy input. This is why you see us so focused (me and Stremmenos). The 1 MW plant, probably will work mostly without energy input, I suppose, because we are resolving the safety issues connected.
The 4 red spots are pumps, the E-Cat clusters are hidden. The three characters in the photo are Prof. Sergio Focardi , Prof. Christos Stremmenos and me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

In response to G.V.
It’s a very interesting possibility and one I’ve raised a couple of months back. Andrea quite rightly pointed out that the chances of nature providing the required pressure, temperature, and elements (the sweet spot) would be very unlikely. However until we have a reasonably accurate theory, we cannot rule out the possibility that the reaction cannot happen at higher pressures and temperatures. It’s also interesting that the known and proposed elements that are used in the e-cat’s core are very common in nature.

Dear Maryyugo:
I repeat: no more public tests will be made. The tests will be made by our Customers with the plants they will buy, based on precise guarantees we give.
If our Customers will want to make their plants tested from third parties, this will be a right of them.
Warmkest Regards,
A.R.

I would like to thank you for the efforts you are doing in order to improve our life and save our Planet.
I am following results of your studies since the very beginning, I try to read all I find on the web and I’ll do my best to attend to the conference that will take place in Viareggio on the 23rd of July on E-Cat.
I was thinking to a way to support you and your invention and, since I am working for a company which is leader in producing software aimed to manage Maintenance and Quality Systems for Energy Power Plants, Oil&Gas and shipping markets, may be you could be interested in our products to correctly manage your first 1 MW power plant. My companies has offices in 22 countries and the Holding is based in Cyprus in Limassol as your Holding is. If you are interested, it would be more than a privilege to me to facilitate contacts between our companies. Please, do not hesitate to get in contact with me for any explanation you may need.
Thanks again and best regards.
Francesco Benetti

Professor Kim’s paper did little to advance my understanding of the Rossi-Focardi phenomena. Great for aspirin sales though. Does it represent a beginning of recognition among the “mainstream” physicists for the reality of LENR? If so, then it is again welcome news. It surely will be a sight to behold when all the arrogant academicians scramble to publish their acceptance papers on the Rossi-Focardi effect, each one claiming to have known all along the phenomena was real, yet somehow lacking the necessary guts to be the first to break the silence.

Dear Ing. Albert Ellul:
Honestly, I must say that it will take time before we will be ready to deliver small units. We will start in November to accept orders for 1 MW plants. For the small units many problems have to be resolved still, starting from the issue regarding the authorizations, which are more complex for units destined to households, for obvious reasons. It is too soon to talk of the characteristics of the small units, in any case when they will hit the market the version will be supplied with all the items deriving from the experience with the 1 MW modules.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Dear Ing. Rossi,
The Hyperion models powered by the e-Cats that are scheduled to be on the market in the short term need a continuous electrical power input to activate the e-Cat, which would then amplify this energy by a great amount. This of course is already a very great achievement. You are now mentioning that operation of the e-cat without the continuous electrical power input is achievable. Would it be possible for the first Hyperion models, requiring the continuous electrical power, to be retro-fitted with the system that does not need the continuous electrical input, but can sustain itself?

Dear Mr. Rossi
Not all geothermal energy can be generated fron radiactive decay. Do you believe that the lack in geothermal energy from radiation could take some justification from natural reaction between Ni and H in the deep Earth?
In the link you can read about this lack (about 1/2 of the total heat of emission)

Dear Nikita Alexand:
I cannot give information regarding the reactor’s operation.
By the way: in the stress tyests we are doing in this period with our modules we are making energy without energy supply from the reasistances for most of time. This answers, partially, to your questions. I am sorry if I can’t give more to you.
Warm regards,
A.R.

Quoting Wikipedia: “A Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter of a dilute gas of weakly interacting bosons confined in an external potential and cooled to temperatures very near absolute zero (0 K or −273.15 °C”).

It does not help to kidnap such a delicate structure and tell it to be “generalized” and operate on a mixture of different particles at several hundred degrees centigrades. It will not obey.

Many people are speculating that your internal resistive heating element has a larger role in this device then just heating. I do not think so but it makes sense.

Can you tell me if your internal heater participates in any chemical reaction instead of only heat transfer?

If the heater is used as a “getter” for contaminant gases like some speculate then this dimensionally restricts your design. From what I understand and what you told me the heater is only for heat, do you agree?

“(2) local magnetic field is very weak in the surface regions, providing a suitable environment in which two neighboring protons can couple their spins anti-parallel to form spin-zero singlet state”

and

“…This may provide a suitable environment in which more of both Ni atoms/nuclei and protons become mobile, thus creating a favorable environment for the case of two species of Bosons (Ni nuclei and composite Bosons of paired two protons).”

and

“The generalized BECNF theory can now be applied to these two-species of Bosons and provides a mechanism for the suppression/cancellation of the Coulomb barrier”

Dear Mario,
Your question is not stupid.
Tungsten is a material we will use for particular applications. It is very expensive and very difficult to work with, due to the very high melting point. The heat transfer is the same, once the system is in equilibrium: if you put a plastic water bottle and a glass water bottle in your frigid, at the beginning water in the glass bottle will cool down faster, but after some time the temperature inside the two bottles will be the same. This derives from the first and second thermodynamic principles.
Warm regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi,
sorry for the stupid question.
Why not use tungsten as a jacket or as a wire twisted around the steel chamber?
Tungsten insulated ten times more than lead. It also increases the heat transfer surface. Tungsten can prevent or minimize the effects of an undesired deflagration of the core. You can have a more segregated core for anti tamper purposes.

Do you have to adjust the H2 load pressure based on the reactor temperature at the time of loading?
(The first load at room temperature will increase in pressure as the reactor heats up. Not so for following H2 loads loaded at the reactor operating temperature.)

When the e-cat is running with the hydrogen line connected, is there a thermal gradient back to room temperature in the hydrogen gas from the reactor to the hydrogen line? (2)

I would think the reactor pressure would behave differently as a function of temperature, when the reactor is sealed versus when the reactor is connected to the hydrogen tank.
Is the reactor normally sealed, then periodically opened to refresh the hydrogen? (3)

Can you do work with the increase in hydrogen pressure when the reactor heats up? (4)
The possibilities are intriguing.

I am sending a link for information about the Quasiturbine. The Canadian company says:

The Quasiturbine (Qurbine) is a « Positive Displacement » turbine alternative.Suitable as a double-circuits Rotary Motor or Expander for compressed air, steam and other fluids,or (later) as an advanced Internal Combustion Rotary Engine, as well as (later) for Compressor of various thermodynamic cycles.The Quasiturbine is a compact, low weight and high torque machine with top efficiency, specially in power modulation applications.

When your E-Cat is released and accepted will you still find time to continue your Journal of Nuclear Physics, to still give the opportunity to other brilliant scientific rebels barred from “Premiere” Journals to publish their results.

Dear Martin:
First of all, thank you for the interesting link.
The English translation is very confusing. I spoke with Prof. Sergio Focardi by telephone few minutes ago, he explained to me that he wanted to say that when we made our tests heating the water we did not calculate the steam that was produced, so that the output has been underestimated.
The Italian journalist, by the way, made a wrong statement: I never worked in Great Britain with Petroldragon, which has always been unknown in Great Britain.
About Petroldragon, please go to http://www.ingandrearossi.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Dear Greg:
The foes are using much more sofisticated systems, based on the character assassination modality.
See http://www.ingandrearossi.com
But there is no problem, we have just to put plants in operation, and use the “chatters-assassination-by-means-of-facts” modality.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

thank you for taking your precious time answering our questions on this forum! I can tell you there are thousands of us who are following the e-cat developments day-by-day, sometimes hour-by-hour. We are on the edge and eagerly waiting for your fantastic invention to hit the main stream. May I have two questions?

1. Have the “dark” powers-that-be already approached you trying to stop you making your invention public by money or by threat. If yes, what was your answer to them?
2. Will there be press release from NASA on the meeting between you and the “extremely high level” scientists, or does the agency want to keep its connection with you confidential for now?

Thank you and I wish you great success in the upcoming months and years!

In many cases lateral thinking can be very helpful, but since in this case we seem to agree on the logical premises an argument based on RAA can be, and as you may have noticed already has been more helpful. It is also my considered opinion that this is a powerful cognitive tool that should be applied to further information that can be sifted out of the present discussions.

Today i red an interview with prof Focardi. It was a tanslation from an original italian interview. He said that the energy measurment/balance issue was not adressed yet. Can you explain what Focardi attempted to say with this statement?

Dear Nikita Alexand:
Sorry, I had misunderstood:
1- No, I do not see derivations in this sense
2- I think the focus will be on other issues, but it is possible that declinations like the one you mentioned can be developed.
I hope to have understood your questions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.